Tuesday, April 12, 2016

A 15 year old boy (let’s call him ‘John’) recently commenced work for
a multi-national fast food chain in Australia. He is a delightful young
man, having been recognised this year by his secondary school as the
most outstanding student for his year level, as well as being awarded
the most outstanding player for his Australian Rules Football Club in
2014. His peers have elected him Captain of his football and cricket
teams for the past two seasons. He really is a terrific young man.

Given his qualities he was assigned to front counter duties. Two
months in to his new job he received a text message from his shift
manager from the previous Saturday shift requesting he meet with her at
5pm to discuss an error with his till. He received the text message at
4:30pm. It was a Tuesday. He replied and said that he would be on site
as soon as possible.

He arrived at 6:30pm. He was informed that his till had been down
“about forty dollars”, that the CCTV video footage had been assessed and
that it was clear he had not stolen the money, but because of the
amount that his till had been down he “had” to be given a written
warning, which he was compelled to sign.

The three major sections of the written warning are provided below:
Note the section, ‘Record employee’s response.’

What does the word, “No” mean?

Given I know this young man, I did some investigating. He told me
that despite the policy that only one till be handled by a single staff
member, and that each till be opened and closed according to each
person’s shift, this was not what he had experienced in his two months
working for the organisation.

In every shift he had worked, including
the shift in question, his till had been used by other staff, including
the shift manager. In fact, during the shift in question, the shift
manager and at least one other staff member had used ‘his’ till during
the shift. In addition, a staff member had slipped and suffered a
suspected broken ankle during the busy lunch period and an ambulance had
been called to attend to the staff member.

Having worked as a young man myself on the front counter for a fast
food chain I found it easy to imagine a fairly hectic scene. The sort of
scene where, if a mistake was going to be made, this is when it would
be made.

I asked him about his recorded response to the second question above.
He said that when he told the shift manager, who was leading the
investigation (the very same shift manager with whom he had worked
during his shift – it seems that for this organisation closed loop
investigations for missing cash are the order of the day) that
other staff had used his till, the shift manager said, “No. I have
checked the CCTV footage an no one else used the till.”

He said that because he had seen his shift manager use his till, and
she had denied it, what could he do? He was then asked if he had
anything to add and he said, “No.”, which is why that was recorded as
his response.

When I spoke with him he was completely unaware of the serious nature of a written warning and because of his desire to ‘do the right thing‘,
had thought that he should simply sign the document and move on. His
shift manager had told him that she had received a written warning when
she had started working for the organisation but it hadn’t stopped her
from becoming a shift manager, so it wasn’t a very big issue. But, it is a big deal. A written warning is about as serious an issue that an employee can experience.

His father immediately understood the serious nature of the written
warning and visited the site to speak with the shift manager. He was
calm and wanted to understand the process that had been followed. He was
informed that the missing amount was “$44.65”, that his son had
definitely not stolen anything and that the CCTV
footage of his shift had been observed and no one else had used his
till. The following day, John’s mother also attended the site and
observed a busy lunch shift and noted multiple staff using multiple
tills. The one till per staff member was just a policy; it was not
reality.

From the start of the issue, John was open to the possibility that he
had been the one whom had caused the error. However, he couldn’t
remember making a mistake and given that other people had, from his
perspective, used the till, he believed that there was enough doubt
about who had made the error that it felt “pretty bad” that he had
received a warning. He also said, “It is pretty clear that I am
just a number. They really didn’t want to hear what I had to say and I
was guilty and had to prove my innocence; not the other way around.”

There are times in life when you just have to go straight to the top.
Encouraged by his father, John contacted one of the owners and asked to
speak with her in confidence. John was concerned that if he spoke up
about his experience and if it wasn’t confidential, then he risked being
‘victimised’.

Fortunately, the owner was happy to speak with him in
confidence and was willing to accept his version of the story, partly
because she told him that the missing amount was actually $41.25, not
$40 or $44.65. How the actual number was not properly communicated is anybody’s guess.
His written warning was changed to a file note that was to include the
fact that other people had used his till. Personally, this still doesn’t
seem a fair outcome.

The owner asked John if he believed the shift manager had viewed the
full three hours of his shift. He told her that he didn’t think that the
shift manager had, simply because he didn’t think she would have had
the time to do so based on his experience of seeing how busy they are
every shift.

Despite her decision, the owner informed John that the one till per
person was the corporation’s policy that the franchisees were expected
to follow it.

It seems to me that at no stage, other than when the owner of the
business spoke with John, that his welfare had been considered. And this
is what happens when policies, generated by head office, don’t work in
practice.

Boxes might get ticked. Reports may get filed. Written warnings may
be issued. And it is all an illusion that people use to report on how
well everything is going. Even when, in reality, it isn’t.

John said that serving the customer was paramount which is why
multiple staff would use the tills during a shift. He also said that the
shift managers didn’t appear to have the time to ensure that a till was
opened and then closed at the book-ends of a shift. While he had been
taught these policies during his induction, he had quickly learned that in reality they don’t work.

However, those very policies were used to initiate a formal, written warning.

I share this story with you so that you can think about your policies. Which ones are being ‘worked around‘
by your staff because they simply don’t work. Or, if you are really
serious about your policies, are you prepared to receive the customer
backlash that will be caused by the reduction in service that your
policies will generate? Your challenge is to create policies that are
both customer and employer friendly.

It’s a pity that John has had his experience. He shared with me that
he didn’t feel as excited about working for this organisation anymore.
Surprise, surprise!

It only took a global corporation two months of casual shifts to
teach a fine young man that he doesn’t really matter to them. And isn’t
that a pity.

My Brand new Beyond Being Good Video Series is now available for leaders who want to know how to create and sustain High Performing Teams.

I highly commend Gary Ryan’s Beyond Being Good video series to people who already are in senior management and leadership roles, to those who are coaching others and to those who are starting their personal leadership journeys. The value and strength of Gary’s style is his messages are conversational, simply expressed and succinct while at every step meaningful and empowering. You are strongly encouraged to consider this video series as a primary tool as you develop your personal leadership style and brand.